I'm not sure exactly what is going on in this page, but I skimmed it and it says nothing about the effect of the oceans on the tidal friction. Since the oceans are the source of the tidal friction, there's no reason to take this analysis seriously.

If you are going to counter evidence for young earth like modern models are not complex enough to explain why there would be an apparent contradiction with conventional timescales, do you have any evidence not based on circular reasoning and uniformitarianism assumptions that suggests earth IS more than 6,000 years old? What is your biggest piece of evidence if you think you have more than one?

I don't think there's any way to convince you that logical thinking and the scientific method are not "circular reasoning." But I'm surely going to point out bad understanding of actual science when I see it. If you are ignoring the effect of the oceans on tidal dissipation, then you don't understand tidal dissipation.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that people refer to this science as "uniformitarianism" given that religion is the institution that much more commonly demands your unthinking obeisance to the truths it feeds to you.

Lionz wrote:Huh? Are you trying to argue that the distance did not increase at a faster rate in the past?

Actually, I am suggesting it may very well have increased at a slower rate. The further the moon gets away from us, the less the gravity between the two affects each other, and all other things being equal, it should move away faster in the future.

In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

5:1 Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

AAFitz wrote:In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

You can't say things like that to someone who rejects this as circular reasoning. You are taking it as a given that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, and then attempting to reconcile other data by just saying "obviously it can't conflict." That won't convince someone like Lionz, and anyways it's not science.

Now, it's true that the reason we were led to think more deeply about the issue is because a naive assumption some people held conflicted with other data; but when we made our assumptions more complex and realistic, we found that there's no conflict between the two sets of data.

Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

5:1 Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

Youre the one not using common sense. As I said, if it is moving away at a rate now that would have put it in contact with the earth, than obviously, that rate was slower in the past, just as the rate will be faster in the future.

More The rate in the past could have been as small as a hundreth of a millimeter, and slowly increased as the moon moved further and further away, which is exactly what you would expect.

youeth are failing basic math, and while I can pardon eth, I would rather teacheth, lest you may open your eyes and see.

Last edited by AAFitz on Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

Since you asked for common sense, let's put it this way. If a car is now moving away from you now at 60 miles per hour, does that it mean it was always moving at 60 miles per hour away from you?

AAFitz wrote:In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.

You can't say things like that to someone who rejects this as circular reasoning. You are taking it as a given that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, and then attempting to reconcile other data by just saying "obviously it can't conflict." That won't convince someone like Lionz, and anyways it's not science.

Now, it's true that the reason we were led to think more deeply about the issue is because a naive assumption some people held conflicted with other data; but when we made our assumptions more complex and realistic, we found that there's no conflict between the two sets of data.

The obviously it cant conflict isnt the important part, and as I said, it may very well conflict anyways. The point is, if the earth is moving away at one rate of speed now, it was necessarily moving away at a slower speed in the past, because the hold is less and less each time it moves away, so the rate is increasing now, and must have been increasing in the past.

His point that going at the same rate through history is devoid of even the most basic understanding of gravity.

Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?

Since you asked for common sense, let's put it this way. If a car is now moving away from you now at 60 miles per hour, does that it mean it was always moving at 60 miles per hour away from you?

I almost used that same example, but its the gravity that changes the rate, not arbitrarily hitting a gas pedal, though it is possible impacts from other objects could have hit the gas pedal so to speak, but ignoring that.... As two objects get further apart, there is less force, so they will accelerate, or decelerate even, but there is no way that two masses that dont change, will move away at the same distance at the same rate, without some other force, and obviously so. Given the two massive masses, and the tiny relative distance they are moving now, it is obvious that that rate in the past was nearly negligible, and that anyone using straight-line figures to estimate where it was 3 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago, really, is kind of an idiot.

I'm not even completely knowledgeable about it, and it was immediately obvious that figuring that rate backwards at the same rate, for billions of years, is so wrong as to be purposefully misleading or...as I said, idiotic.

AAFitz wrote:I almost used that same example, but its the gravity that changes. As two objects get further apart, there is less force, so they will accelerate, or decelerate even, but there is no way that two masses that dont change, will move away at the same distance at the same rate, without some other force, and obviously so. Given the two massive masses, and the tiny relative distance they are moving now, it is obvious that that rate in the past was nearly negligible, and that anyone using straight-line figures to estimate where it was 3 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago, really, is kind of an idiot.

I'm not even completely knowledgeable about it, and it was immediately obvious that figuring that rate backwards at the same rate, for billions of years, is so wrong as to be purposefully misleading or...as I said, idiotic.

Sure. You can get a naive estimate of the age of the system by using the current rate, and just assuming it was constant for all time. Now, Lionz cited a source that did a slightly more complicated calculation, and extrapolated the strength of the tidal force backwards in time, which gives a more accurate answer but doesn't change it by, say, an order of magnitude. Let's say Lionz does understand the source he cited. Then what is ignorant is considering the gravitational physics involved while at the same time neglecting the physics of the ocean water that is ultimately responsible for the tidal torque on the system. That's even worse than just completely rejecting science; he's using some science to prove a point he wants, as if that argumentation is legitimate, without considering the full complexity of the problem.

So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past? And would the moon need to be even a 10% closer than now to seriously mess stuff up?

Lionz wrote:So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past?

Your source doesn't understand the basic science here, which is the problem. Your source assumes that we don't need to worry about all the complicated physics that results in the way the oceans respond to the tidal force exerted by the Moon, and the way the oceans correspondingly interact with the continents and the Earth's rotation. Unless there's any sort of argumentation explaining why we don't need to worry about such complicating factors, the argument is meaningless.

This may be surprising to you, but we astrophysicists aren't in the habit of visiting the creation wiki when we need help understanding physics problems.

Lionz wrote:So basically you choose to bend a current rate to fit a preconceived notion about when the moon came to exist and call that science? How much slower do you think the rate was if my source claims it was actually faster in the past? And would the moon need to be even a 10% closer than now to seriously mess stuff up?

No, it is you who is bending the rate, or more aptly, making it up.

And if the moon was 10% closer, things would be different. Also, things were different.

I don't think anyone suggested the earth has remained unchanged for billions of years. In fact, we are arguing the exact opposite.

But again....what will the rate do in the future? Will it slow, or will it get faster? Or did it slow, and will it now just stay constant indefinitely? (assuming all other things being equal) And why? We can even pretend the last 4.5 billion years didnt happen if you'd like.

If the moon is moving away from the earth at a certain rate now, what will it do in the future?

Also, if a planet crashed into the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and the moon formed a little closer than where it is now, wouldnt ignoring that make your sources calculations absolutely meaningless in every way?

How about we get into something a little more concrete if you can bend rates to preconceived notions about what occurred in the past?

Can we get back into dinosaurs if referring to images from Jurassic Park was essentially the gist of a recent secular response to evidence? Is it not true that The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described here?

Lionz wrote:How about we get into something a little more concrete if you can bend rates to preconceived notions about what occurred in the past?

Can we get back into dinosaurs if referring to pictures of Jurassic Park was essentially the gist of a recent secular response to evidence? Is it not true that The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described here?

Lionz wrote:"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon

Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?

The moon is not moving away from us because of kinematical reasons, it's moving away because of tidal torque. That tidal torque is a consequence of the fact that the Moon and Earth's rotation is asynchronous; that is, they have different rotation periods about their own rotation axes. The resulting tidal torque is what is responsible for the Moon moving away from us. In fact, that's the secondary effect of the main issue, which is that the rotation periods are coming into sync. When that happens, no more torque will be exerted by the oceans, and the Moon will stop drifting away due to the tidal friction.

daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

i think he's referring to anti-evolution arguments here with regards to a Christian view on this. I''d suggest both you and he take a breather from annoying one another.

I'd also point out that the Biblical sense of prophecy doesn't mean predicting the future, or even telling the truth.

daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

As for the prophecy thing, that's part of the whole problem too, as people are taking passages from a very long book that are at best vague and unspecific, and then applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility. What reason do you think they might do that - ah yes to prove God exists....

And Symmetry, you obviously having been paying much attention if you think I'm worried about annoying a theist who doesn't get his facts right

daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

Actually a lot of what he quotes has little to do with Christian scripture. But yeah, I have a whole thread dominated by pages of my answering his various assertions.. only to have him turn around and hit me with a barrage of essentially the same questions reworded, occasionally a few others and plenty of repeated photos. He seems to LOVE photos. Finds some pretty unusual ones, but as for carrying on a sensible discussion.. forget it.

crispybits wrote:I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

As for the prophecy thing, that's part of the whole problem too, as people are taking passages from a very long book that are at best vague and unspecific, and then applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility. What reason do you think they might do that - ah yes to prove God exists....

And Symmetry, you obviously having been paying much attention if you think I'm worried about annoying a theist who doesn't get his facts right

"...quoting scripture without answering a point." -- "...applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility." Like I said: neither one even close to "It's true because the Bible says so."

Still waiting, either for "it's true because the Bible says so" or for your retraction.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

Can you give me any other reason for trying to give the bible credibility in a thread about evidence for god?

Edit - regardless of that:

Lionz wrote:If the great pyramid backs up history according to Hebrew scripture and the scripture claims that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth, then does the great pyramid itself not suggest that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth?

Paraphrased:

If the bible is credible because of X evidence, and the bible says God exists, then God exists.